April 9, 2008

Transportation Focus Group

Meeting Notes by Charles Rivasplata

Marc Salomon chaired the focus group meeting, asking that all participants introduce themselves (Calendar Item 1). A total of 15 individuals were in attendance, including some Western SoMa Task Force members and staff from the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA).

The following bullets summarize the principal topics discussed at the meeting:

· Marc introduced Julie Kirschbaum, Manager of the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP), who was unable to make the previous meeting. She was invited to the meeting to address local concerns surrounding the recently-released, draft TEP proposal (Calendar Item 3). At the March meeting, the Transportation Focus Group presented Peter Straus with the following proposals:

1. Route the 47 Line down Folsom Street rather thanMission.

2. Extend the 19 Line further east on Folsom Street to Main.

3. Keep the EB 27 Line on Bryant, but switch the WB 27 Line to Brannan.

4. Provide a new transit line between the Church Street and Caltrain Stations.

· Julie introduced herself, apologizing for not being able to attend the March meeting. She reported that her schedule has been hectic, with from 5 to 10 presentations a week. She came to answer questions, but said that she too, had some questions to ask the Focus Group. She thanked the group for clearly defining its concerns with the TEP, but admitted that MTA staff is still studying the implications of the proposal and that she would not yet be able to answer all of the questions.

· Jim Meko pointed out that the Western SoMa Task Force is not merely a community group. It is a legislatively-mandated task force, charged with guiding future planning in the Western SoMa. He emphasized the importance of transportation in developing a viable set of planning proposals for the area. He requested that the group eventually be given a clear explanation for each service decision taken by the MTA.

· Julie responded that the Western SoMa Task Force is treated like any other agency and that at this point, no changes have been made to the TEP, as she and her staff are still receiving comments on the proposal. She requested that she be given a timeline for the planning process undertaken by the Task Force.

· Paul Lord explained that a disproportionately high amount of housing development is being built in the SoMa, including areas of the Western SoMa neighborhood, and for this reason, transit service is key to the area's future. Proposed development includes

- 400 units at 8^th and Harrison Streets;

- height bonuses north of Harrison Street ; and

- no housing development south of Harrison Street.

· Paul stressed the fact that due to the relative proximity of this neighborhood to the downtown, the transportation mode split in the Western SoMa favors alternatives to the automobile. He stressed that transit has a role to play in the community's future.

· In response to Julie's question concerning a planning timeline for Western SoMa, Marc pointed out that the area will see major development over the next 10 years. Jim warned that without an adequate level of transit service, residential development cannot be proposed for the area. Tom added that in Western SoMa, up to 2,000 units could be built over the next 10 years (e.g., based on St. Joseph's, 8^th and Harrison and other projects).

· Julie asked if the group would consider the introduction of trolley coaches on Folsom Street, or not. The issue of capital costs for electrification was discussed as were the operational savings.

· Jim explained that the electrification of Folsom Street could encourage dense development in the area. Tom said that he would like to see more information on MTA's capital plan, i.e., the priorities in terms of modes and routes.

· With respect to the 47 Line, Julie asked the group if it would consider either a.) a biodiesel-fueled bus line down Folsom Street, or b.) operation of a bus line down Mission Street.

· The group unanimously rejected the latter option. Antoinetta Stadlman asked about the electrification of lines and what the implications would be for the system. Marc expressed interest in a biodiesel alternative for Folsom Street.

· According to Julie, the operation of 60-seat buses every 10 minutes would provide too much transit supply on Folsom. She argued that the proposed development would not generate enough transit demand for the service to be justified.

· Julie asked what the group felt about the proposed 19 Line (downtown circulator). She explained that it was developed to respond to greater movement within the downtown area.

· Jim asked that the service extend further eastward to Main Street , thereby linking Western SoMa with East SoMa and the Embarcadero.

· Julie reiterated that there are tradeoffs between lines. For example, one would be serving parts of downtown at the cost of serving Folsom Street in the Mission.

· Jim argued that the Folsom Street corridor has the potential to effectively bring together businesses throughout the SoMa.

· Marc asked about the status of the Church Street Station-to-Caltrain transit line that he and others developed earlier.

· Julie questioned whether the line would serve a specific market. She appeared to doubt whether there is an adequate level of demand for such a service.

· Marc pointed out that adoption of the Market-Octavia Area Plan alone brings about 6,000 residential units to the Market-Van Ness area, and that the proposed Church St. Sta.-Caltrain line would provide transit to these new users, as peak period trains in the Market Street subway are packed and offer no additional supply. He argued that this line could provide passengers living west of Church Street with direct service to a number of uses along the proposed route (e.g., Rainbow Grocery, Showplace Square).

· Paul emphasized the draft nature of the Community Plan, thanking Julie for coming to the meeting. He recognized that the projects were not ranked, but emphasized the need to stretch transit services as far east and west on Folsom as possible.

· Antoinetta pointed out that biodiesel fuel is really not effective because it offers limited environmental benefit. Tom stressed the need to give first priority to low emission solutions.

· Tom remarked that he would like to see the MTA consider a plan for phasing-in improvements, according to capital expenditure priorities. He believes that it would help the Task Force develop a community benefits package.

· Julie explained that unfortunately, needed expenditures on transit infrastructure are often not included in the planning of the project.

· Julie announced that a meeting would be organized in the area to discuss the TEP. It will be held on 14 May, at 7^th and Harrison Streets. She probably won't be able to return to the Transportation Focus Group to discuss network changes until the June meeting.

· The Group emphasized the importance of two major changes to the proposal;

- two-way street conversions

- stretching service along Folsom.

· As far as upcoming milestones are concerned, Paul said that the Community Plan would go to the Planning Commission in July 2008, and that the EIR process would begin in early 2009.

· The group again thanked Julie for her participation in the meeting.

· Marc moved on to the next agenda item, namely, the Bike Plan EIR Initial Study (Calendar Item 4). He asked that the four intersections/segments listed in the agenda be fully discussed:

- 10^th St./Market/Fell/Polk;

- South Van Ness, Howard and 13^thSt.;

- Division between Potrero and Valencia ; and

- Market between 8^th St. and The Embarcadero.

· Marc questioned why these intersections had not been addressed. He pointed out that all four intersections/segments currently pose significant problems.

· Oliver Gajda, Bicycle Program Manager, explained that some information on intersections was already provided to the Planning Department (Major Environmental Analysis Division). Of the four intersection/segments listed above, he reported that the first and fourth were considered in the EIR document, but that the second is not on the table because it is not recommended at this time.

· Marc argued that this is a dangerous area, where bicyclists are often forced to use the sidewalk, posing safety concerns for pedestrians.

· Tom explained that there are two key components of the Bicycle Plan:

- Program level improvements that may not have specific improvements; and

- Project level improvements that do.

He asked if these four intersections/segments could be added to the network at the program level, i.e., lines on a map, as opposed to specific projects.

· Oliver explained that the MTA has focused on completing the previously-defined bike network, without adding new pieces to it. He emphasized the need to finish that which has already been started.

· Paul brought up the fact that there are holes in the bike network and asked what plans had been developed to tackle the next round of improvements. He questioned why some areas of the city under other jurisdictions, such as Golden Gate Park , have seen lane improvements, while others inside the inner city are not improved.

· Oliver explained that the environmental review process will consider 56 projects citywide. He pointed out that these projects have been in the works for a long time, dating as far back as 1997, in some cases.

· In response, Marc countered that the community must move forward as conditions change. He contended that gaps in the network need to be addressed immediately.

· Oliver pointed to improvements to the system in the Western SoMa, but recognized that certain areas cannot be improved at this time (e.g., the second intersection at So. Van Ness/Howard/13^thSt.).

· Tom identified a trade-off between projects with sharrows and signs, and urgently needed improvements. He suggested protecting unsafe areas. He asked what would happen if something is not included – in the short term, what are the implications?

· Marc reiterated the options offered to the MTA:

- compromise some consistency in the delivery of projects; and

- initiate a process to start up necessary projects.

· Tom requested a timeline for Howard Street. He mentioned the prospect of a two-way Folsom Street and a two-way Howard Street. He expressed a concern that the Task Force could get boxed in by the Bicycle Plan.

· Paul brought up the example of the St. Joseph's, a potential housing and retail site located at 10^th St. and Howard. He asked if specific projects could require a specific intersection/segment improvement as a mitigation measure.

· Rana Ahmadi of the MTA stated that at this point in the process, a project mitigation could not legally be included in the environmental analysis. However, she did acknowledge that not all program level work requires intersection analysis.

· Marc asserted that after the Bicycle Plan has been certified (in Spring 2009), the mitigation improvement can be made. Tom again asked how long the community would have to wait to go beyond the present plan.

· Rana explained that nothing is on the table as far as a process is concerned.

· Marc asked if the planning process has a timeline. For example, what is the schedule for beginning a Bicycle Plan 2.0? This is a very important process needed to improve the system as a whole.

· Andy Thornley of the Bicycle Coalition pointed out that not all projects are based on immediate priorities. He asked what sort of delay to the process a few extra lines on the network would cause. He pointed out that sharrows and signs could be left off in some cases, so that these lines are implemented. For example, priority should be placed on rationalizing the westbound 30 bicycle route. What sort of delay to the environmental process would these additional lines entail?

· If these intersections/segments were added to the network as lines, Oliver argues that the MTA would have to amend consultant contracts and reassess the cumulative impacts. He pointed out that this would result in added costs.

· Tom asked what costs the addition of these lines would incur, if they do not involve individual projects. This change could effectively allow for these lines to be added to the Western SoMa EIR.

· Marc suggested that Daly ask for legal counsel on the implications of including lines. How should the Task Force proceed with respect to identified network gaps?

· Marc suggested that a motion be considered by the Focus Group. The motion asks the City Attorney to provide legal counsel on the implications of adding lines to the bike network.

· The vote on this motion went as follows:

- 7 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstention (Task Force)

- 1 in favor, 0 opposed, o abstentions (public)

· Marc brought up the Town Hall meeting, tentatively scheduled for 24 April at the Bessie Carmichael School (Calendar Item 5).

· Paul explained that the meeting will begin with an overview by Jim. Each participant will be given a list of the Community Plan objectives, but not the policies.

· The entire group will then be divided into four sub-groups, each covering an element or set of elements of the Community Plan, such as Transportation. Each subgroup will have experts consisting of Task Force members and some City staff. In the case of the Streets and Transportation subgroup, each plan section (e.g., transit, alleys) will be covered by an expert.

· Jim pointed out that the primary objective of the Town Hall meeting is to describe and discuss the Draft Community Plan, carefully explaining how the Task Force came up with the objectives. He encouraged members to do well.

· Tom suggested that the following items be made available for the Town Hall:

- enlarged color map of the Western SoMa street network

- 8.5 x 11 color map handouts of street hierarchy (for each participant)

· Marc checked to see if there was any new business to discuss (Calendar Item 6) or public comment (Calendar Item 7). Seeing none, he adjourned the meeting.

All items on the Transportation Focus Group's calendar were dealt with. The next Transportation Focus Group meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 14 May, at the same time and location.